it would be difficult to recover and restore them. what you think will happen to the ukrainian president? >> it is hard for me to say anything. i don't think he has a political future. at i told him about that and , we will help him. if we only did this out of humanitarian considerations. death is the simplest way to get rid of his legitimate -- get rid of a legitimate president, i think. they would just kill him, i think. the question is, why, what for? how did this all start? what triggered this entire chaotic situation? signs that he refused to

the eu association agreement. today, it looks like nonsense. ridiculous. he did not actually refuse to sign the agreement. all he said was, we have analyzed this thoroughly, and it seems like it would not serve our national interest. forannot raise fuel prices our common people drastically because people are in a difference -- a difficult situation. we can't do this. we can't do that. we can't sever our economic ties with russia because we are closely integrated with russia. at $7.5aid earlier, exports, itheir think $5 billion worth of it goes to russia.

they producenery goes to russia. nothing goes to the west. if they now sever those ties and introduce western technical standards in ukraine that we don't use in russia -- sometimes russia will use those standards, as well, that we haven't done economic tieseans will be broken. there will be unemployment. factories will shut down. he did not refuse to sign the agreement. he just said, we need some more time to consider this document before we sign it. right away, all hell broke loose. was this unlawful for him to do so? no, it was perfectly lawful. they just used this as an excuse andupport opposition forces their aspirations for power. actually, there is nothing wrong takethat, but how can you

a situation of anarchy and chaos and armed seizure of power? this is unacceptable. it is not the first time western powers have done this in ukraine. i think they sit there across -- pond in the u.s. sometimes it feels to me they are in a lab, and they are running all sorts of experiments on rats without understanding the consequences of what they are doing. why would they do that? nobody can explain it. the same goes for the first wave of protests and independence square. why did you do that? the third round of elections -- ukrainian politics turned into a force -- farce.

people get used to this. think people can violate something, then everybody can do the same. then chaos breaks out. we should teach our people to the constitution, basic laws, all the other laws. of course, this doesn't always work, but action like this is extremely counterproductive and dangerous. >> you said he is not legitimate. what about the new government? are they legitimate? if russia is concerned about radical elements getting stronger, they often get if they face an enemy. of course, they consider russia the fact thatday, russia is ready to deploy forces in ukraine. doesn't make sense maybe to talk

to moderate forces in the ukrainian government? >> it looks like you don't hear me. i told you three days ago, titled the government -- i told to preservent economic ties, to support them in their efforts to restore the economy. i gave these orders to the government. ira pete -- i repeat, all of our trade, economic, cultural ties, we will only be able to develop them entirely after this situation normalizes and the

presidential election takes place. they do not want to extend the current special price. the agreement was to confirm them every quarter. even before those events started, before the situation escalated. know how gas from talks to their partners. that they agreement will introduce a special price for 100ount to $268

cubic meters. buyrussian government will -- actually, this is like a loan. $3 billion is the first tranche, and then the ukrainian government assumes the obligation to pay the edebt that that hase debt accumulated from last year and to make regular payments for natural gas. they failed to pay up the debt. they don't pay for the gas they are using now. don't payan partners for february, the debt will grow even bigger. i think it is $1.5 billion today. if they don't pay for february, it will be $2 billion. naturale, does only that they say, -- it is only

natural that they say, if you don't pay us and your debt is ever-increasing, let's use a regular price instead of special price. it makes perfect commercial sense. their investment plans, like any other major company, they have revenue, expenditures, and they have to plan ahead. if they don't receive anything from their ukrainian partners, this means they undermine their investment programs. this is a real problem. this has nothing to do with the situation in ukraine, with politics. they have an agreement -- we offer you money, you make sure you pay it regularly. we give the money. they failed to deliver. it is only natural that they say, we will no longer have any of this.

angela merkel said you agreed to send an international fact checking mission to come up with a certain -- [no audio] >> i said, we have trained people that have met already with the foreign minister of germany. of course, we see a lot of , but we alsoimea see what is happening in east ukraine.

flags are raising russian on administrative buildings. they are: russia for help. will russia responded? >> this is the kind of response -- we have been discussing this kind of response for an hour now. while many things that are happening are coming as a surprise to me, this sort of response is expected. , thosetners in the west who claim themselves to be the interim power, they should have -- i have told them, why do you divide the country?why do you work to split the country ? they went whole hog, as they say. of course, people in the east realize that they are not being consulted and actually need to

pass a new constitution that will have to be approved at a referendum. ukrainehe citizens in need to feel they are part of this political process, that inir voices are heard shaping the main principles of the state order in their country. this is none of our business. it is up to the ukrainians to decide. it is up to the ukrainian authorities. authoritiesitimate are elected, once a new parliament is elected, that will take place. it if i, i hope so too were in their shoes, -- i hope so too. if i were in their shoes, i would approve a new constitutional referendum. they haveople believe

not been consulted, they will fight against it, but it is none of our business. will russia recognize the president who is going to be elected? well, it depends. if it takes place amid the -- we havehe key of seen in kiev, we will not. >> we have heard some tough rhetoric from the west. what about the paralympics rush is going to host? >> i think it would be highly cynical to boycott the paralympics. we all know what that event is all about. it is a sports for him. it is an international sports festival where people with disabilities can prove to themselves and to the whole that they are people without any disabilities, that they have endless power, they

can use in their sports performance to prove that. if somebody is trying to disrupt that, it would only mean that people who are taking these chances have nothing sacred. as for the hypothetical use of force, the west claims that russia would violate the budapest agreement, according to which the territorial integrity of ukraine is insured -- ensured. playersonal and global interfere in this conflict? >> before we go public about something, or even before doing something in a practical way, we think twice about it. we try to think about the

and the response from all of the players. as for the agreements you mentioned, do you represent writers? yes. how does your society assess this conflict? power. non-seizure of it runs against the constitution. that is clear. maybe your appeal to the u.k. >> i think you could make a good diplomat. language has been invented to disguise your insults. when we say it is non-constitutional, and overthrow power, they say, no, it is not like this. maybe you have heard it many times -- the west says, it's a revolution.

ok, if it is a revolution, what is it? it is hard not to agree with some of the russian experts who say that a new state could appear on this territory, just like up until the break of the russian empire in 1917. we have not signed any fundamental documents or any agreements with this new state. well, i would like to clarify -- if the u.s. introduces sanctions, you say it will damage bilateral relations. does it mean russia could come up with some response, its own sanctions? you also mentioned the discount for the natural gas prices. what about those bonds,

government bonds? the first trench was issued in late 2013. what about the next steps? what are the economic and russiaal conditions for to allocate these additional resources? >> in principle, we will be additionalovide funds to buy up more bonds, but our western partners asked us not to do that. they said, we need to work together within the imf to stimulate the ukrainian to pass reforms to improve the economy.

that is the way we are going to work in the future. thaturse, given the fact the ukrainian gas corporation , theot been paying government has set up different options. general, i believe the situation is balancing out. we need to send a signal to who live in the south and east of ukraine, they need to feel that they are secure, that they are part of the political process, part of the stabilization efforts. >> you've mentioned several about legitimate action. who do you see as the cover my's candidate? of course, you're going to say it is up to the ukrainian people , but -- >> i have no idea, to be honest. >> since the ukrainian people i have beenark,

talking to lots of ukrainians. >> i have no idea. after such a crisis, it is very difficult to give any forecast. i don't welcome this message of overthrowing the legitimate authorities. as i said, it doesn't help to imbue the culture of legitimacy. this is the worst thing that .ould happen to a country in these conditions, anyone could come to power.

so, some of the units -- there were units in germany that helped to bring hitler to power. that is one kind of analogy. there is one thing i agree on. they are calling for drastic change. they want some fresh faces in power, but there is a threat that someone -- some nationalist figure, we have seen lots of signs, withthose swastikas. that thestatement soviet union a fortify the thements on the crimes by pro-nazi units in world war ii.

>> as i said, there could be personality who could grab power that could have serious consequences. we have had very successful cooperation with ukrainian authorities who represent difficult -- different political views. we worked with many. there were different situations. we had arguments. we had agreements. that was constructive work. if she wants to come to moscow,

she is welcome, that she is not have the government. i don't know her status. we will not block her from coming to moscow. who hasinal question -- masterminded this regime change in ukraine? >> as i said, it has all been well prepared. of course, there were some armed units. we have seen them be efficient. course, the west has done a good job. that is not what i want to say. if authorities were strong and we wouldn't be able to get this result. the problem is that none of the previous governments never thought about the needs of their people. we do have a lot of problems in russia. we do have a lot of similar

issues. they are not as acute as in the ukraine. the average income per capita in is 29.7 thousand rubles. in ukraine, it is 11.5 thousand. pension is 10,000, while in ukraine, it is 5.5. the veterans get quite decent pay. there is quite a big gap in the living standards. that is what the government should have focused on. nepotism infight the economy. people are aware of that. they hold distrust towards the authorities. of course, that has a key militant over several generations of modern ukrainian has accumulation

over several generations of modern ukrainian politicians. people want to see fresh faces. they want to see change. yes, probably you need some new you need to do it in a legitimate way in line with the constitution. referendum inbe a crimea? >> there are no ifs in politics. that will be no exception. the formerple say president has died. >> i saw him once after he came to russia, and he was well alive. than theive longer

people who circulate those gossips. think intin, do you recent months when the situation escalated, what kind of smith -- what kind of mistakes did the president make? >> i will not answer this question. it isn't because i do not know the answer. i think it would be improper for me to talk about that. >> do you sympathize with him? >> no. no, my feelings are totally different. a person who performs such obligations as the head of state has certain rights and certain obligations, duties. is to implement the will of the people who entrusted him with the country,

staying within the boundaries of law. you have to analyze whether he , asdone everything he could he was allowed to by law and the mandate he received from his voters. you should analyze this and make your own conclusions. > you said you have different feelings. could you please explain? >> i will talk to you in person later. we have to stop. last question. >> channel five, st. petersburg. you said, first of all, we need to present our position to people in southern and eastern ukraine. ourourse, we need to make position known to all the people in the ukraine. we don't have any -- any enemies. >ukrainians are our brothers. >> do you know how many people moved from ukraine to russia last year? 3.3 million people. russiaon of them came to

in order to get a job here. they work here. 3 million people. do you know how much money they send back to their families in ukraine? take just the average income and multiply it by 3 million -- this is a major contribution to ukraine's gdp. this is a lot. andccept all those people those who come from western ukraine. we treat all of them like brothers. >> we talk a lot about southern and eastern ukraine, but there are russia's -- russians and western ukraine. their situation is even more difficult. minority. they are being oppressed. how can we help them? >> we think that the current authorities, if they really claim to be civilized, should make sure that their citizens are secure regardless of where they live. we will watch and monitor the situation, of course. thank you.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] senators chris murphy, john mccain, and jeff sessions spoke about russian intervention in ukraine in floor speeches on tuesday. this is 30 minutes. completely dwarfing any amount of money spent on the other side. i want to talk about the ongoing crisis in the ukraine and i'm glad to have senator mccain on the floor today because it's really hard to describe the sensation both he and i felt at the end of last year when we got the chance to travel to the midon, independent square in kiev and speak to about a million people. and it was even harder to describe the sensation of hearing that group of people yelling back to you in unison, "thank you, u.s.a.. thank you, u.s.a." but that was the reality that we were able to experience.

and it's important to note that senator mccain and i didn't go to the midon that day to advocate for president yanukovych's removal even though that the end of that process resulted in that fact. in actuality, we spent two hours that night meeting with yanukovych, pleading with him to reverse course on his decision to abandon plans to join the e.u. so that he could win back the support of the hundreds of thousands of people who had gathered on that square to support european integration and domestic political reforms. but president yanukovych didn't listen, and instead he lost his legitimacy as ruler when he turned his security services on his own people, resulting in the murder of over 100 ukrainians who simply wanted to compel their leader to follow the wishes of the ukrainian people. now i was proud to author a resolution that passed unanimously in this body that declared our support for the ability of ukrainians to peacefully air their grievances

against their government and oppose the use of force against them. then i was equally proud to join senator mccain and some others in a bipartisan call for sanctions against yanukovych when he began his murderous crusade against the protesters. and i was even prouder of president obama who through the state department sent a clear, unwavering message to the ukrainian people that the united states stood with them in their desire to see a better future for ukraine aligned with europe and the west. this strong bipartisan approach here in america to the midon movement helped the people in the ukraine as they charted their path toward a new government. we didn't dictate. we supported the right of the people to determine it for themselves. but now despite the success of the midon, the crisis in the ukraine has changed its face. it hasn't dissipated. and today secretary kerry was greeted in kiev by ukrainians pleading for the continued support of the united states. and so having been so clear

voiced in our support of the ukrainian people thus far since the tproe tests began last november, now is the moment when republicans and democrats should stand united in this congress so years from now when a group assembles in kiev marking the anniversary of this grave crisis they will celebrate ukraine's political sovereignty and economic rebirth with more chance of thanks to the united states. so, in what shape should this support come? first, we need to stand together in the next week to deliver serious financial assistance to ukrainian economy that is weak and is growing weaker as this crisis persists. a $1 billion aid package is a good start, but our real work must happen within the structures of the i.m.f., which can provide the potentially tens of billions of dollars necessary to fully right the ukrainian economic ship. and while ukraine does need to undergo economic and budget reforms from within, i would caution the i.m.f. to be gentle in the timing of the conditions applied to this aid.

difficult steps need to be undertaken to right size gas prices and trim budget deficits, but ukraine should be given a long enough lease so that these necessary reforms don't strangle a nation today dealing with threats to its very existence. second cry me i can't. -- crimea. they have invaded and the very accord they signed guaranteeing crimea's territory. no doubt president putin was sore and no doubt he didn't like the fact that the united states voiced its strong support for the right of a sovereign ukraine to make independent decisions about its future partnerships and no doubt he is infuriated that the ukrainian people are now on their way to getting their way. but this is not a schoolyard. you don't get to push around weaker kids just because you

don't like them. this is the 21st century. the reason we belong to organizations like the united nations or the reason we negotiate treaties like the budapest memorandum is because we now understand, after centuries of european war, how destabilizing this kind of behavior is. the irony for russia, of course, is that this invasion demonstrably weakens, not strengthens their nation's position in the world. let's say for argument's sake that the end result of this crisis is a crimea more closely aligned with russia than the ukraine. what will that have accomplished for russia? won the occupation of two million ukrainians while the majority of the 43 million go towards the european union. if the united states and russia make good on sanctions threat it will devastate the russian economy leaving millions of russians out of work and adding instability to putin's land at a time he can't afford much more instability. and it will make russia an

international pariah, shunned by industrialized nations that helped form the future path of global political and economic values. given this reality, why did putin do it? he didn't do it to protect russians in ukraine because the only threat to their safety is due to a military crisis of russia's own making. he did it because like the schoolyard bully, he doesn't see past his own nose. he believes that he wins by temporarily flexing his muscles and by capturing the world's attention. he doesn't look to the long term potentially dire consequences to his own political standing and his own people. he throws punches because it feels good today, no matter how bad it will hurt tomorrow. but that being said, no matter the irrationality of moscow's behavior, we need to make sure in the case that russia does not correct this mistake and correct it soon, that the consequences do hurt. i believe that congress should authorize broad authority for president obama to enact strong sanctions on russia through

penalties to its banks, its oil companies and its political and economic elite. i believe the president should only be allowed to use this authority in the case that this illegal incursion into ukraine continues and that we should give moscow the opportunity to reverse course or join with the international community to address their concerns about the safety of russian citizens in ukraine. let's give russia the chance to make this better and deliver a clear message of consequences if they don't. this of course can't happen without the support of our european allies and as chairman of the foreign relations committee son europe i'll be on the phone this week with european parliamentarians urging them to join us in proposing new sanctions on the russian economy. i know there is hesitance in europe due to the integration of russia into the european economies, but this crisis should frankly matter more to europe than it matters to us. five years ago, it was a laughable proposition that russia would invade ukraine, but it's happening now, and it may be unthinkable today that russia in five years is going to move

on a nato ally, but if this aggression goes unchecked, then the future can be very perilous, even for our friends in europe. finally, a word on the politics of this crisis. i've listened to some of my good friends on the republican side try to score political points in connection with the russian move on crima, trying to -- crimea, trying to paint this as how obama's fault. this is a ridiculous contention. putin marched into georgia in 2008 under a republican president whom many of my republican colleagues considered to be strong on foreign policy and now he is dealing with a democrat in office, and president obama today is considering steps in response that seemingly weren't even considered in 2008. and what makes me even more suspect of the criticism of president obama is that there doesn't seem to be any real difference here between what republicans want the president to do and what he is actually doing. it's easy to just say that it's obama's fault, but history tells us otherwise and these political attacks mask the fortunate fact that today there is pretty solid

bipartisan agreement on what to do next. ukraine can remain whole and free, madam president, and it can stay on a path to join europe, and when that day emerges from the smoke and the fire of the crisis, if we play our cards right, then they will have america and our european allies to thank in part for that new day. i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i thank my colleague from connecticut for his thoughtful remarks on the events taking place, the tragedies taking place in ukraine as we speak today. i appreciate his commitment to trying to find a way through this very difficult situation. the senator is dead wrong when he says this is like georgia. in fact, this senator wanted to do a lot more than we did.

in fact, we did a lot more. the fundamental problem here i say to my friend from connecticut is that this president does not understand vladimir putin. he does not understand his ambitions. he does not understand that vladimir putin is an old k.g.b. colonel bent on restoration of the soviet of the russian empire. it was vladimir putin that said the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century was the downfall of the soviet union. the senator from connecticut should understand that, that what this is all about, and this president has never understood it. this president is the one that ridiculed mitt romney when mitt romney said our great enemy was russia and its geopolitical threats, said the cold war has been over for 20 years. this president believes the cold war was over. vladimir putin doesn't believe that the cold war is over, and

when -- when the president of the united states is overheard to say to -- to mr. putin's puppet, mr. meg -- vedev, tell vladimir after i am re-elected, i will be more flexible. did you get that? tell vladimir after i am re-elected, i will be more flexible. this is the president that somehow believed that vladimir putin had anything but the ambitions which he is now realizing in the ukraine. in fact, i think it might be interesting for my colleagues to note that what vladimir putin spoke to the press today, and vladimir putin, among other things during his answering questions from the press, said, first of all, my assessment of what happened in kiev and in

ukraine in general, there can only be one assessment. this was an anticonstitutional takeover and armed seizure of power. that was vladimir putin's view of what happened in kiev. as yanukovych slaughtered, i believe, 82 innocent civilians as well as wounding hundreds, and then he goes on to say, i would like to stress that under that agreement mr. yanukovych actually handed over power. obviously, yanukovych did not hand over power. he was driven from power by the good people who were tired of his corruption, were sick of his nepotism and his crony capitalism. anybody who believes anything good about mr. yanukovych should see the pictures of the home he had and the dacha that he was

building that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. truly a man of the people. the parliament of president putin went on to say the current acting president -- talking about the acting president of ukraine -- is definitely not legitimate. there is only one legitimate president from a legal standpoint. yanukovych is the only undoubtedly legitimate president. and then comes more interesting things. mr. putin announced -- vladimir putin now says now about financial aid to crimea. as you know, we have decided to organize work in the russian regions to aid crimea which has turned to us for humanitarian support. we will provide it, of course. i competent say how much, when or how. the government is working on this by bringing together the regions bordering on crimea by providing additional support to our regions so they could help

the people in crimea. we will do it, of course. regarding the deployment of troops, the use of armed forces, so far there is no need for it but the possibility remains. i repeat today, vladimir putin said regarding the deployment of troops, the use of armed forces, so far there is no need for it, but the possibility remains. now, this is a return to the old russian soviet doublespeak which was absolute nonsense, but they said it anyway. he goes on to say what is our biggest concern? we see the rampage of reactionary forces, nationalist and antisemitic forces going on in certain parts of ukraine including kiev. when we see -- when we see this, we understand what worries the citizens of ukraine, both russian and ukrainian and the russian-speaking population in

the eastern and southern regions of ukraine. it is this uncontrolled crime that worries them. therefore, if we see such uncontrolled crime spreading to the eastern regions of the country, we should pay careful attention to these words of mr. putin. if we see such uncontrolled crime spreading to the eastern regions of the country and if the people ask us for help, while we already have the official request from the legitimate president, we retain the right to use all available means to protect those people. we believe this would be absolutely legitimate. then he goes on to say, in answer to the question, thus the tension in crimea which was linked to the possibility, the possibility of using our armed forces simply died down and there was no need to use them. i repeat. the tension in crimea was linked to the possibility of using our

armed forces simply died down and there was no need to use them. the only thing we had to do, and we did it, was to enhance the defense of our military facilities because they are constantly receiving threats, and we were aware of the armed nationalists moving in. now, russia has well-trained, well-equipped, now additional 16,000 or more, and vladimir putin was worried about enhancing the defense of his military facilities because they were constantly receiving threats. there is something i'd like to stress, however, he goes on to say. obviously, what i am going to say now is not within my authority, and we do not intend to interfere. however, we firmly believe that all citizens of ukraine, i repeat, wherever they live should be given the same equal right to participate in the life of their country in determining its future. my friends, we are seeing justification for intervention

and serious intervention in eastern ukraine. so he goes on to further questions, and then he goes on to take a shot at the united states, saying our partners, especially in the united states, always clearly formulate their own geopolitical and state interests and follow them with persistence, then using the principle -- quote -- you're either with us or against us, they draw the whole world in. those who do not join in get beaten until they do. then he goes on to say our approach is different. we proceed from the conviction that we always act legitimately. i have personally -- i say to my colleague, i am not making this up. this is what vladimir putin said. i would like to stress yet again, i have always been an advocate of acting in compliance with international law. i'd like to stress yet again that if we do make the decision, if i do decide to use the armed forces, this will be a

legitimate decision in full compliance with both general norms of international law since we have the appeal of the legitimate president and with our commitments which in this case coincide with our interest to protect the people with whom we have close historical culture and economic ties. protecting these people is in our national interest. this is a humanitarian mission. we do not intend to subjugate anyone or to dictate to anyone. however, we cannot remain indifferent if we see that they are being persecuted, destroyed and humiliated. then here is probably the most interesting part. the question -- mr. president, a clarification, if i may? the people who are blocking the ukrainian army units in crimea were wearing uniforms that strongly resembled the russian army uniform. were those russian soldiers,

russian military? vladimir putin -- why don't you go take a look at the post-soviet states. there are many uniforms there that are similar. you can go to the store and buy any kind of uniform. question -- but were they russian soldiers or not? vladimir putin -- those were local self-defense units. those were local self-defense units. question -- how well trained are they if we compare them to the self-defense units in kiev? vladimir putin -- my dear colleague, look how well trained the people who operate in kiev were. as we all know, they were trained at special bases in neighboring states, in lithuania, poland and in ukraine itself, too. they were trained by instructors for extended periods. they were divided into dozens and hundreds. their actions were coordinated. they had good communication systems. it was all like clock work.

did you see them in action? they looked very professional, like special forces. why do you think those in crimea should be any worse? in that case, can i specify it? did we take part in training crimean self-defense forces? vladimir putin -- no, we did not. and this is the same guy that the president of the united states pushed the reset button time and again with. this is the same guy that we can work with vladimir putin and my colleague from -- and former member of this body on friday, on friday, as putin's forces moved in to the crimean, and it was very clear to anyone that the russians were moving in, the secretary of state on friday spoke with russian -- secretary

of state john f. kerry spoab friday with russian foreign minister sergay lavrov. quote from secretary kerry -- we raised the issue of airports, raised the issue of armored vehicles, raised the issue of personnel in various places, kerry said, and while we were told that they were not engaging in any violation of the sovereignty and do not intend to, i nevertheless made it clear that that could be misinterpreted at this moment and that there are enough tensions that it is important for everybody to be extremely careful not to inflame the situation and not to send the wrong messages. i am not making that up. so after five years of -- of believing that somehow vladimir putin was anything but what he is, we are now paying the piper.

the chickens are coming home to roost. and we do we have a military option? no. but we do have a number of other options. i want to read one other article that was in the "usa today" today by jonah goldberg, "obama in denial on russia." i won't go through a lot of it about student obama, in 1983, then-columbia university student obama penned a lengthy article for the school magazine, placing the blame for u.s.-soviet tensions largely on america's -- quote -- war pen tallity and the twisted logic of the cold war, president reagan's defense buildup according to obama contributed to the silent spread of militarism and reflected our distorted national priorities rather than what should be our goal, a nuclear-free world. that's what student obama said. but the remarkable thing that

two weeks ago in response to tensions in ukraine, two weeks ago the president explained that -- quote -- "our approach is not to see events in ukraine as some cold war chess board in which we're in competition with russia. this is a horrible way to talk about the cold war because it starts from the premise that it all was just a game conducted between two morally equivalent competitors. similar comments about cold war rivalries and the like are commonplace of late especially during the olympics when nbc commentators were desperate to portray the chapter as nothing more than a pivot alexperience. america surely made mistakes during the near half century struggle. the fact is there was a right side and a wrong side to that conflict and we were on the right side of it. the soviet union of which vladimir putin was a part, the

soviet union murdered millions of its own people, stifled freedom in nearly every form, enslaved whole nations and actively tried to undermine democracy all around the world including in the u.s. president putin, a former k.g.b. agent has said --. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent for five more minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. commune: president putin, a former k.b.g. agent said the collapse of the evil empire was -- and i quote -- "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century." that should have been a clue to this white house that reset buttons weren't going to cut it but they were too stuck in the past to see it. i could go on and on including the ridicule some of us were subjected to when we pointed this out from time to time.

including in 2008 when i said in a debate with then-candidate obama, watch ukraine, watch ukraine, putin will not give up ukraine. we need to have an economic aid passage immediately and i'm glad our secretary of state is over there, initial loan loan guarantees and a longer substitute package through the international monetary fund. we have to stabilize the economy, the economy of ukraine which is on the board near collapse. financial sanctions, freezing assets, visa bands, trade embassies can -- embargoes can be accomplished, and people will not have bank accounts, will not travel, not ever get a visa, they need to pay a penalty for oark sphraiting what's happening -- orchestrating what's happening in ukraine right now. obviously we should not go to the gh summit.

he should be thrown out of the g.h. it should be the g-7. there has to be -- obviously suspend military-to-military engagements. we need to have a path and a quick one for both moldova and georgia to move into nato. both countries are occupied by russian troops. moldova and in georgia, and, by the way, every day quite often the russians keep moving the fence further and further into the sovereign territory of these countries. in an attempt to appease mr. putin we abandoned missile defense systems in poland and check check --, the czech republic. we need to reinstate those and move forward as quickly as possible. there's a number of things that the most powerful nation in the world needs to do. i'm not counting on our yiewn

friends -- european friends, already there have been statements by and merkel and the -- awn debrisa merkel and leaking a memorandum from the british government. we may have to do a lot of things by ourselves because they're dependent on russia for a lot of their energy supplies and actually we have seen a significant recession in european leadership over the last ten to 20 years. but we need to act and we need to speak up in favor of the people who are now being overtaken in crimea by vladimir putin's army, his military. and i worry and -- in conclusion i say it's time we woke up about vladimir putin. it's time that this administration got real. and it's also time for us to worry about what vladimir putin will do on eastern ukraine on the pretext that somehow

disorder and demonstrations might require russian presence. and my friends, if we allow mr. putin to assert his authority over these areas because of russian-speaking people, that message is not lost on poland, where there's russian population, on romania, on latvia, estonia, lithuania and moldova, and we are on the verge possibly of seeing a move to reassert the old russian empire, which is mr. putin's lifelong ambition. madam president, i've overstayed my time. i thank my colleague from alabama and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i appreciate the opportunity to listen to senator mccain. i think facts have proven him

right for many -- over many years of warning this country about how we have to conduct international relations in a realistic way. i had the opportunity to be in georgia and the ukraine about three years ago, in georgia we went to asettia, where the russians had moved in there against the european -- the international law, and had set in and just last week or so we were informed by the prime minister from georgia they were building barbed wire fences along that border, digging in even deeper than they had before. they told us in the ukraine, we met with some of the democratic dissidents that were trying to hang on for democracy there, they had beaten tim cinco. -- tim ashe knowo.

who, the lady who led the orange revolution. she was worried about going to jail. i didn't think she would go to jail but they kept her in jail for years on what the e.u. and nato officials have all said were bogus charges. and they told us that they were somewhat depressed, some of the democratic activists there that putin with his intel background was using the russian intelligence services in ukraine to buy up media, buy up television, to propagandize the country and they were hurting. they didn't know if they could be able to successfully resist and it was such a delight for me to see this revolution again. basically a nonviolent resolution, in which -- revolution in which the people stood up for their country and now we see that mr. putin does not accept sovereignty. and he's going to try to utilize

military force in a way that's stunning, and i got to say the crimea is far larger and more strategically significant than south assettia but it's just the same act >> risk foreign secretary william hague on rich -- on russia's intervention and ukraine. his remarks follow talks held on ukraine. this is one hour and 35 minutes. >> the secretary of state's, secretary william hague. >> i will make a statement on the situation in ukraine. the house will recall from my statement last monday that on friday the 21st of february,

former president viktor yanukovych and the opposition signed an agreement to end the months of violence. shortly afterwards, he fled kiev. in constitution was restored early presidential elections were called for the 25th of may and an interim government was appointed. last wednesday, resident booth ordered military exercises involving -- president putin or ordered military exercises. our demand appeared outside of government buildings in crimea. putin sought to find the approval of the arbor house to use russian armed forces anywhere on the territory of ukraine without the consent of the ukrainian government. [no audio]

>> we are having technical problems in we are going to try to fix it and bring the program here in a few minutes. >> economic measures, and to our partners as we want to achieve unity and resolve and the international community deval patrick response and contribute to the escalation of the crisis. >> hello, mr. speaker.

arrays -- arise for all the poetic measures to be used. that is absolutely what we are doing and indeed, i think from agreementery strong of the gravity of the threats and the principles that should guide us in responding to it. ofspoke about the violation ukraine's independence and sovereignty. he commended the u.n. -- the ukrainian government for its restraint and urged them to continue with that and to continue to do everything they can to show they are being inclusive within ukraine, that there is no threat to you russian -- to russians. i put it to them yesterday that they could have additional changes to language laws. towould give extra assurance the acting president not to that infringe in

any way on the russian language to go ahead. the -- whetherr i thought the imf would be able to respond. a stronghere is recognition among the ukrainian ministers that they do need to do something quite different economically but they have to issues.hese deep-seated i think it is entirely possible that imf could respond in a two-stage process with the second stage following after elections on may 25. i met three of the likely presidential candidates, not in the government would likely to run for president while i was there. i'm kurds all of them to support economic reforms, including an anticorruption and much greater transparency in government.

i think there is a reasonable rossbach to agree on the basis of such commitment. he asked about -- she welcomed the initial steps. i think that is the right way to describe it. certainly, the united kingdom and strongly advocated we need to take further actions. those actions must be done on a united basis and of course well judged and well targeted. i don't think it would be helpful for different countries to announce ahead of the european council what they want to see. andunited position, whatever measures they decide to take on thursday. i can't tell him -- he asked if all options remain on the table and the answer is yes. no partially photographed

documents to be taken as a guide to decisions made on these matters. those options remain open. -- thed about the suspension of the preparations. the d sevensterday, be able to hold meetings of their own. that is an option. i think it will be necessary not only to take well judged measures and responsiveness, but across the european union for there to be a recognition that russia needs the european union economically just as much or more than the european union needs russia. we need to have the common political will and to organize way toes in a cohesive have the political will and economic leverage in the future

to be much clear than it is today. doing that may be one of the longer-term consequences of what russia has done in the crimea. >> sir peter. >> may i put it to the foreign secretary that brussels is probably -- is partly to blame. if the already over and largest european union is going to continue to try to extend its borders towards mongolia, we will indeed finish up with a third world war. every russian knows that the was theof the crimea greatest achievement of catherine the great. ofrussian government whatever political complexion could ever give up the crimea

and you could be absolutely certain that the russian people are passionately in support of president putin over this issue. >> i differ a little bit on this. crimea to give the ukraine in 1954 and in the 1990's, followed that with a series of agreements. the budapest memorandum, the 1997 agreement on the black sea in which they forceful -- fo integritykrainian and russia chose to do that. they must honor their international obligations. it is not the ambition of the eu or the u.k. to extend its

borders to mongolia. what we're talking about here is not ukrainian membership of the european union but free trade -- a free trade agreement between the european union and the country that freely chose to enter into negotiations about that. it should not be possible for any other country to have a veto over any nation choosing to do that. >> mr. jack straw. >> thank you. the foreign secretary will be aware that in russia, the narrative to justify what we all regard as completely unjustified is a very differ one from here. from which thees russian government sees has been the decision of ukrainian

parliament to seek to change the law guaranteeing membership including russia. i welcome what the foreign secretary said about the interim president vetoing the law. wouldn't it be better to pressure the new interim government to repealing that legislation altogether? for as long as that law remains on their statute, this will be used by the russian government as a means of justifying their intervention. >> i am grateful for the gentlemen. an. the repeal of that law has not gone on to the statute book. the president vetoed it. however, i agree with the thrust of his question which there may can do to give assurances on this to make sure that they have the language laws put itre entirely -- i

to them yesterday. that should be one of the things that they work on and we will encourage the government of ukraine to do so. >> i am grateful for the second opportunity. as my friend recognize any parallels between russia's actions against georgia and its current policy and its current policy with ukraine? >> i do. while these actions have in common and although they parallel with that as well, i think it can be seen as an attempt to impair and permanently obstruct the proper operations of the free and democratic functioning of these countries. the cooperation with the euro

atlantic structures. that is a clear passion and behavior towards georgia and now it is being repeated in the ukraine. statesnd and the baltic are increasingly nervous of russia's expansion. the foreign secretary authority said there are still russian troops in georgia so is in this more incumbent upon us that we stand up as a whole european union, united, calm, but extremely robust lest the crimea be a 21st century waste-- >> i agree. all of the work is important. calm are allt, and required in this situation from the nations of the european union and from the european council when it meets on thursday. the options are open on certain

measures and as i have also said, it is important there are cost to behavior of this kind. i very strongly believe that. drawnt conclusions can be from the fact that russian troops in the crimea or have not been wearing any marks of identification or insignia? ini think this is particular in the early stages of the russian operation. that was designed to try to conceal the fact that it was a russian operation. however, all pretext about this was subsequently cast aside because many thousands of russian troops appeared to have been deployed to the crimea. it shows that this was a well-planned, perhaps a long and that itation was put into operation in a way in which to try to minimize a

reaction. layout the government position is as far sanctions are concerned against them. what is his view and cause for complete boycott of the olympic games? the olympics have happened. placeralympics are taking over the next couple of weeks. as i mentioned, we would not be sending u.k. government representatives there. the government does not believe in sporting boycotts of olympic events. athletes will continue to go to the paralympics and i am sure they will have the support and enthusiasm of this house and the great endeavors they will make theire. >> the me make clear that the documents is not a statement of

government policy. we also agreed that russia's actions are not just in breach of the u.n. charter and the budapest memorandum, but also the agreement that was established in the commonwealth of independent states. russia's actions have very serious implications for other members as well as ukraine. >> my friend make some very important points. document being carried into a meeting is necessarily representative of at all of the decisions that are made by the majesties government and the ministers. he is absolutely right about the invocations for other former soviet republics and their independence. that is why this is not an isolated issue. it is not possible to say, this

is just about the crimea and we don't have to worry about this. it does have very important implications for the upholding of international treaties and obligations and the respect for the independence and sovereignty of nationstates. >> the council of europe was established for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law and rush is a member. -- russia is a member. rockwool bc the council having in the situation -- what role do you see the council having in this situation? whitesmoke and to the council of europe about the role that they could play. they have important roles to play in any issue about the protection of minorities. it is not acceptable for a member of the council of europe to behave in this way and there must be consequences within the council of europe as well. speaker, the foreign

secretary will recall that last week when he made his statement i asked if he had received an assurance from foreign minister labral that russia would not intervene in ukraine. we have now seen they have done so. i wonder if my friend is able to confirm overnight reports from a friend of mine that the russians have been busing in russian citizens from outside ukraine to act as provocateurs. does this kind of action represent the return to the kind of soviet style foreign policy? confirm i cannot reports that my friend mentioned , i have heard other reports of the same effect including when i was in ukraine yesterday. that why i said earlier

questions asked about disturbances in eastern parts of ukraine, it is not clear whether they are inspired from outside. a clearthere has to be possibility that some of those are inside from outside the country and we should see them in that light. russia's ownng bank. up to two thirds of the russian money in london is from corruption and other crime but the very least, it is britain's top word that should anything. shouldn't those assets be frozen now? >> we do have very important regulations in this country about the lyrically exposed persons -- politically exposed persons. we have strong laws on money laundering. i agree the review crania prime

minister on asset recovery -- i agree with the ukrainian prime minister on asset recovery. i would only add at the moment given our experience on sanctions being applied to several parts of the world in recent years, we have to be legally very sure of our case to apply sanctions to individuals and have the evidence to sustain them through court proceedings. we have to bear that in mind. we were prepared to violate the territorial integrity of siberia to protect kosovo. we have the self-determination of russia's in crimea. while please resist the talk of economic sanctions that could only damage the fragile recovery of europe and engage in to my dialogues --

diplomatic dialogues? everyare engaged in issue of diplomatic dialogues and that will continue. our diplomatic efforts will continue at all times. a response to have beyond that and that is why we have already put measures on the g8. thedid you has made -- why eu has put other options on the table. it is such a challenge to the international order. they cannot possibly go ahead without costs and consequences. >> france is currently negotiating a one billion euro of ships being delivered to

the russian navy. is there any indication that the french navy would make a part of the sanctions negotiations? >> we don't have any indications from france about that at the moment. will be further extensive meetings between european heads of government on thursday. the issue of arms exports licensings will be one of the issues and the european nations have to consider. come together to have united approach but it is one of the issues we must now examine. of the implications of what he said is that if the russians continue, they will be by the eu and nato and u.s. sanctions against russia, it will respond

by bertelli aiding its individual countries to try to crack the unity of that policy. is it confident that he can maintain that in the long run? i have stressed other points. it is the importance of unity among western nations including the european union on this, on the importance of being measures -- any measures being well judged and well targeted. requirewhy these things some calm and careful consideration rather than quick unilateral announcements by this country or any other of the member states of the eu. these actions should be condemned and there should be no apologies for what russia has done. is it not the case that the large majority of people in the crimea do feel a strong attachment to russia and we all

inw the impulsive actions 1954 when it was handed over to the ukraine by all parts of the soviet union. if we want to de-escalate the crisis, we're not talking about the second crimea war, is it not possible to find out through the democratic process what the people of crimea want? the majority would be along the lines i indicated. their view should be taken into account in this crisis. >> we are not talking about a new crimea war although the actions russia has taken, they have risked that for them a new crimea in war. i would make one point about this. there is a russian speaking majority in the crimea but that my geordie -- that majority is

run 50 to 60. there are important minorities in the crimea and their rights need to be respected as well. it is too simplistic approach to this to say the majority in crimea would like to be in a different situation from the current one and any referendum that is held should be held on the basis consistent with the constitution of the sovereign nation of ukraine. that is not the current proposal. the part of the problem is that ukraine is a deeply divided society in which both sides have laid at one time or another winner takes all. when he talks about the importance of maintaining a unified ukraine, does he agree with the conclusion a professor when he says the only way to keep ukraine together may be

through the introduction of a new federal constitution with much greater powers for the different regions? >> my friend makes a very valid point. it is for the ukrainians to decide on their constitutional structure. i am advocating they make the decisions in accordance with their constitution. it is for them to decide on that in the future. it is a country in which there is a strong case for more decentralization and there is a very strong case to turn away from the winner take all attitude in politics and strategically. i have gone after -- gone out of my way to stress the russia that we do not do this in zero-sum terms. although we welcome closer ties between the ukraine and the we recognizen, russia has entirely legitimate interests and relationships with ukraine. we will continue to make that argument.

we defined the backbones of too many european governments have included have appeared misplaced. the west is never seem to me more unable to stand up. infusedkness is clearly as a kgb thug. there must be sanctions. i can understand why he still is a member of the g8. >> we have made our announcement about the g-8. we must remember that we are working on diplomatic channels and progress. we have taken that decision -- she might disagree with that and say it should be entirely a reaction of imposing costs. to advocateen diplomatic ways forward at the

same time as making sure there are costs and consequences. i agree with the importance of there being costs and consequences. i would simply remind you that it is important to arrive at .hat in a united the robust way a bully like president putin -- none of that you have notice is much more important than that. the ruble is under severe pressure. will the foreign secretary agree economichat actually sanctions against russia will work even if there may be some cost to businesses in the u.k.? >> i think the gentleman had in mind, it is important not to

cases of mistaken identity -- identity. the foreign secretary. as i mentioned before, the options are open but any measures we take have to be well targeted and well guarded. my friend is right to point to what has happened on the moscow stock exchange, what happened to the value of the russian currency yesterday. there are major risks for russia economically and i expressed the view a few moments ago that in the medium to long term, russia needs the economic cooperation of european nations just as much or more than they need the cooperation of russia. this has got to become part of russia's copulations -- calculations. >> given putin's increasingly not alence, is there

danger that the west gets caught between strong words and no action? and on the other hand, the legitimate interests of russia both to the ports and the mediterranean port have also economic interest so in the sense providing him with some -- is there not a case for looking for a new deal which addresses some of those legitimate russian protects but also self-determination around russia's borders and also gives some confidence that both the president and the people that nato had limited ambitions around russia's border is i think that is part of the problem? >> we must be alert to the dangers. yes, be prepared to be imaginative about long-term

frameworks and solutions on this. i have to say that we have already made this argument to the foreign minister. we do recognize those born interest -- those russian interest but we're are not seeking a zero-sum strategic gain. there will be ways for the russian economy to benefit as well as the ukrainian economy. making hase we are been what we have seen over the last few days. it shows how difficult it is to construct such a global deal. light of the behavior, are you aware of the danger of a calm response being perceived as a weak response by russia? >> we must be alert for that danger as well which is why it

is important that there are costs and consequences to russia behaving in this way. aware.rs are very >> the organization for security and cooperation in europe has a huge opportunity to make a difference on the ground and assist with the de-escalation. what efforts are being supported at the osce headquarters to ensure that the largest scale monitoring mission is dispatched as soon as possible? >> there are two things that we are working on. i mentioned there are urgent consultations being taken place in vienna. one is the deployment of monitors to try to avoid the flash point we have been talking about. tofar, russia is refusing access such monitors into crimea. perhaps there will be more that we could do in other parts of

ukraine. we are also working on the creation of a contact group to try to open a new diplomatic channel and a forum for russia and ukraine to be able to discuss things. russia has not accepted that idea either. we are continuing to pursue both ideas. >> thank you. given what the foreign secretary just said about the recognition sensibilities of russia in this situation, does he recognize that the eu's ambitions of the eastern partnerships over the past 18 formed some responsibility for the relationships between russia and the ukraine? the expressedple, views of the eu diplomats who actually stated or even

threatened that the ukrainian leadership would have to come to the eu on their knees at the didn't do what the eu wanted? we are talking about an association agreement which remains on the table between the eu and ukraine. it is simply something that ukraine was willingly enter into. there is a requirement from the eu that they do that. it is a very different thing from eu membership. it was being discussed with the unicode which -- viktor yanukovych administration because they wanted to discuss it. inm everything i have seen ukraine, having been there on sunday and monday, there has been very strong political unity in that country that they and they do want to

enter into closer association with the european union. that is their right and decision. i think we should be prepared to defend their right to make those decisions. >> how close is the european reeing ono ag sanctions in response to russia's actions? how with is very from the approach the u.s. is taken? >> work is going on on this now. the foreign affairs council met yesterday and made the announcement i referred to. there will be further work among you in -- eu nations between now and the european council. the prime minister spoke to president hollande last night to coordinate our position. we will keep in close coordination with the united states on this. she will have to wait for the council on thursday.

economic sanctions would be very counterproductive and would require the much bolder approval of the entire eu members, but surely there is a case of targeted wine until sanctions against members of the russian elite living in the u.k. involved in the illegal invasion ofthe ukraine and suspected efforts made. >> there is a case. including the house, my friend make it a case as well for certain measures. i am not excluding the possibility of any of those. i simply return to what i was saying about it being well judged, well targeted, legal. these will be important considerations of the next few days. >> russia is increasingly belligerent foreign policy, military aggression in crimea

and georgia is funded by the exporter of gas and oil. what can the european union due to make particular countries in central and eastern europe lest appended upon oil and gas from russia and ukraine as well less dependent? >> there are many things they could do, some of which are under way. they can develop alternative energy supplies, including fracking. including as the united states becomes an energy exporter, there are alternative sources there in the future and sources -- the inauguration of of the new pipeline project from the caspian sea which will be a new route for gas supplies into

europe, not passing through russia, not from russia. this infrastructure will take time to develop but it is important to do so. the world is becoming increasingly unstable. this latest example to world peace is the classic case in my view. will the foreign secretary array with me -- agree with me that our country must rethink the funding of our armed forces to make sure we have the ships, the navy, the air force to me potential threats in the future. i am not hinting we should go to war on this case but it is a reminder we need to keep our defenses up. in an unstable world we do need to keep up our defenses, that is right. that is why this country is investing in some very sophisticated military projects for the future. as twotain the spending

percent of our gdp on defense. i do feel that many nato countries have or do stood up theirending -- reduced defense spending. we are one of the few countries that maintains the two percent spending on gdp. eightare countries across -- across nativity to reevaluate the defense spending. >> a partnership between ukraine and nato assigned. declaration did complement the charter that was signed. if you -- if possible nato involvement is ruled out, then are the signatures worth the paper they are written on? -ukraine commission has met on the back of those agreements. there will be further nato agreements -- meetings. we are clear in this house.

that we are not planning another crimea war. i am not sure what the member is advocating that nato should do, in addition to the diplomatic moves we have made through nato. those agreements with ukraine are important but they don't include coming to the arms defense of ukraine. >> thank you. delegationnservative has sought the -- the suspension from batch of russia from the council of europe. they decline to sit on the group. state saysecretary of what more the u.k. delegation could do for the council of europe as a whole and contributing towards the restoration of democracy and human rights in ukraine?

>> i think this is an issue to be raised vigorously. i welcome the decisions made by my conservative colleagues in the parliamentary assembly. there are russian representatives and other political groups in the council of europe and all political groups from russia are in one way or another approved by the kremlin. members may want to attend to those matters. i hope the members of all parties in the council of europe will pursue this vigorously in their sessions. >> the foreign secretary rightly of thed the vetoing legislation downgrading the russian language in ukraine, but he will also understand that the very fact they are prepared to pass legislation caused severe concern for the 21st -- 20% of

the russian population in ukraine. what further measures does he believe the ukrainian parliament should be taking to give real reassurance to that part of the population that they are not under threat? as we all for them, understand, this is for them to decide in their country. i did put it ukrainian ministers yesterday that in addition to consolidating the veto of the legislation in question, they should think about crafting a new language law that represents the consensus in their country and the long-term protection and upholding the rights of minority languages in ukraine. of aare in the midst crisis in the moment and we have to understand that what i hope that is a proposal they would take seriously. my friend mentioned in a

statement the creation of the contact group. has china said or done so far to assist in the situation? i read it out as russia and ukraine. china's role in this is important. china has spoken on the issue at the united nations security council. they have said, they have talked about the importance of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine. i hope that is a statement imposition that china will be able to develop over the coming days. obviously the incursion of any foreign troops into the ukraine is wrong and could lead to further wars, but does the foreign secretary not accept

that part of the problem in the region has been this ambition of nato expansion further eastward and more and more nato and u.s. run bases within the region. isn't it time to bring it about the long-term neutrality and de-escalation of nato's presence on the borders of russia? is an action by russia that is hardly designed for less nato presence on russia's border. they will be anxious to have a stronger nato presence in the future and those countries in close proximity. this is a very counterproductive thing to do from that point of view. nato membership has not been a prospect for ukraine. in any caseexcuse, as so many members have said, for the actions we have seen from russia over the last few days but it certainly is no

wasification that ukraine about to join nato which is not something that was in any prospect. >> thank you. should we not just look back at the lessons of the last couple of decades? it is clear this current russian leadership is not really worried about this international obligations or treaties because what it has done as we has heard of ready -- as we have heard already, they have occupied a part of georgia. after a few diplomatic rumblings, everything went back to normal and he gives the impression they could go on doing that with impunity which is exactly what they have done. can i really urge my friend, particularly on thursday's european council, to push for the toughest possible economic sanctions? it is the only lesson they would learn otherwise we would see again ander and over

is not surprising the former soviet union countries are worried. >> this is why it is important that there are costs and consequences for what has occurred. i don't think i can add to what i said earlier. there are much measures -- there are measures we must take but i think it will lead over the coming years to european nations assessing their interests in a different way. it will have long-term consequences for russia's relationship with the rest of europe and that is something which should be of concern to them. whatever the measures we are able to take in the short term. from an area with very strong ukrainian community.

given the troubled history of democracy in the ukraine since its independence, ki asked the secretary -- the foreign secretary church the government in kiev and the major political parties to accept international to ensure-- observers it is fair and free as possible? >> yes. we will do that. i think this is important. i have stressed to the ukrainian leaders the importance of these elections being free and fair and well conducted. they have set a rapid timetable for them given the condition of the country at the moment for the 25th of may. international support for that is important. we will certainly pursue the points of observers for the elections. i welcome the foreign

secretary statements. i urge them to work with all the western allies and to have one voice. the realities of the u.k. in it -- and europe's energy dependence on ukraine and russia make it absolutely crucial that in addition to hitting the european union's targets, we hit the energy security at the top of the agenda? >> my friend is quite right. to strayt is important too far from the responsibilities of my colleagues that it is important that energy supply is not only efficient, but it is also sufficiently diverse for security. i think this will become an even more important consideration.

>> even the dangers in the situation, but discussions have the circuit to this -- did the foreign secretary have to ensure that the ukrainian people have free access to sources of information of what is actually happening in that country? >> this is a very important point in a very difficult point for them because there are many regions of the ukraine where russian state television is broadcast and the people are hearing one side, very much one partial side of the argument. they are taking -- from what i can see, they are taking correct steps to correct misinformation. dear giving maximum information to the world media but i think this is one of those occasions where it is important for people to use the social media and to

listen to different sources of information because they will receive the truth from one source. my friends have alluded to the danger of crimea becoming another frozen conflict. georgia,ia occupied thousands of georgians had to flee their homes across the border. thinkteps does my friend the international community should take to protect the rights of ethnic ukrainians in crimea? >> this is also an important issue. it is one of the reasons we want to see ukraine and russia be able to talk to each other about the diplomatic settlement of these issues. it is a very complex issue given the range of minorities within crimea. it is not possible at the moment for people to leave.

road and air access out of crimea is extremely difficult but there could be very serious mediums implications. it is another strong argument for russia to engage with a contact group or in consultations under the budapest memorandum rather than have this problem build up over the coming weeks. >> for many years, and the majority of the delegates of the council of europe have been in putin's group as russian party and they have collaborated closely on what many policies were created. can we take it that this breach is a permanent one and the conservatives will be joining me in the christian democrat party?

>> what was said earlier i conservative -- by conservative bers, they have made clear that the parson of -- the parts are of previous arrangements. there have been members of the so-called liberal democratic party from russia which is a very nationalistic party and the socialist group. some attention needs to be given to this at the other side of the house as well. this morning i was speaking to the parents of my godchild. they described the rapture in which the people of crimea. they are actually concerned about the illegal and ross and appalling behavior of the movement. i asked the secretary of state

to give full attention to this gang of unpleasant creatures and to emphasize that the conduct must be reformed. >> my friend raises another important dimension to this situation and things which now need to be bgripped. the ability for the united kingdom to do that is very small but this is the reason why we are exerting the pressure that we are for a diplomatic settlement. unless russia and ukraine speak directly about these things, unless russia is willing to, then all of these issues are going to get much worse in the coming days. they will become a growing problem for russia as well is ukraine -- as ukraine. >> what reassurance can the foreign secretary get to the ukrainian community? him -- can i ask him if

they could have unity on standards for example, germany of imports from russia. can you get an agreement on that? hashe ukrainian community played a very important role in this country. this is a moment to recognize and applaud that and they could be assured as you can see from everything i've been saying about the importance and energy withll put in to assisting the peaceful, democratic future for ukraine. -- i'veuestion about addressed that several times. it is important that there were constant consequences but it is also important to change over the long term. of economic relationship, including the

energy relationship between european nations and russia and we will beginning our attention to that. must give whatever credible support we can to the free people and government of ukraine. one of russia's abilities it is desperate need to capture investment. reasonable needs of interrupting capital investment flow to russia if mr. putin does not step back in this unjustified aggression? -- severalanother proposals have been put forward. i have not ruled out any of these options. , economic and financial options are open depending on consultations of other countries and depending on the course of events over the next few days. >> jonathan edwards. it will be looking at economic sanctions, including the flow into the city of

london. the u.s. is considering doing a course of action that that would be largely ineffective. in ruling out such actions, is it not the case for the interests of u.k. foreign policy international response would be -- >> i think he has been here for the last hour. out any ofruled those things. there is no measure so far that has been proposed by any of our allies that the united kingdom has blocked. i will explain the actions we take -- we have not ruled out any options. it will be taken with our allies with careful consideration and depending on the next events of the next few days. memorandumpest marked a very substantial piece taken by ukraine and substantial

in terms of the number of weapons that ukraine held at that time. the secretary of state has been cleared about the obligations placed on russia. what obligations are placed on us as a signature? >> our obligations are to support as we do the independence and territorial integrity of ukraine. it doesn't placed on us an obligation to take armed action about that. it provides in article six of the memorandum for consultation between the signatories. that is what we and the united states are proposing for tomorrow. secretary kerry and i and the acting foreign minister of ukraine will be in paris tomorrow. there is an opportunity for us to have consultations under the budapest memorandum. that is the technical answer.

that is what it provides for. further to the point of the secretary's comments, the u.k. andived a limited supply exposure to consequences for the rest of europe. what do you do about ensuring the security of the supplies so does not end up limiting our ability to take actions against russians? with the gentleman is raising is very important but it is more of a medium to longer-term issue. there are important things we're doing now to a different side -- diversify energy supplies in europe. one of them was the new pipeline which we inaugurated the construction of in december but that will take several years to construct. although this is a medium to

long term issue, i think what has just happened will be a sharp reminder to everyone in europe that it is an important issue. dealing with it is going to become one of the important foreign-policy security issues over the next few years. >> this is a test with united test fort it is also a the european union. i want to know what discussions you had with your german counterpart. you mentioned the word united. whether the germans are part of that united effort. there are others watching in the international community to see if there is resolutions, not least in beijing web different aspirations. >> my friend makes a good point.

have very regular discussions with my german counterpart, including at the weekend. the prime minister spoke with us last night in addition to discussions that she had last thursday. we will be working closely with germany on this and we would be looking for a clear united position at the european council on thursday. part the fact in there are serious concerns with putin and his government. with the same thing happening in russia as is happening ukraine? i think russia is a country, as many countries where foreign-policy is determined by domestic pressure.

what happened 10 days ago in ukraine was a major reverse for russian foreign-policy. in many ways, many would've thought the humiliation. i think there are many explanations for why russia chose to do the actions they did. one of them was try to alleviate that humiliation. nothing less than a land grab and the biggest strategic shock on the continent for decades if putin gets away with this, more trouble will follow in central and eastern europe. agree the west needs to unify around the much more robust response that we have seen so far and that in support of it, the u.k. should emigrate -- demonstrate it is actively considering all forms of economic sanctions?

>> >> and we are actively considering a wide range of options here. i have not rolled any option now. i'm sure you noticed in these questions. i think the response that we have made so far is correct. we have emphasized the need for new diplomatic openings as well as for there to be cost and consequences for this russian action. but in the absence of a change of policy from russia, we will have to move on to making sure those costs and consequences do take place. mentionedtleman whatt wise in considering sanctions may be used against russia. as any had need conversations with his colleagues about the military technical corporation agreement which i understand